Becoming Divine and Following Christ’s Footsteps: The Quest for a Spiritual State in Arcand’s Jesus of Montreal

Ever since I was introduced to “Jesus of Montreal” in a beginner’s French class at college, I have been an avid fan of the movie. There is something poignant and touching in the whole story and its delivery.

The movie works on various levels. It is definitely a critique of crystallized conservative (not to mention stagnant) authorities that refuse to accept any change whatsoever to their established doctrines. In the movie, the Passion play was modernized and made upbeat with inclusion of the most recent findings of scholars on the enigmatic persona called Jesus of Nazareth.

This actualized play revived a mounting interest both in the man and the religion but the Church authorities in the movie would rather have the play canceled and return to its overacted and pretentious traditional version. In this case, the actor who plays Jesus in the movie, a well-meaning individual on the quest for truth, is in conflict with the same forces that Jesus had to deal with over 2000 years ago because Jesus himself wanted to “modernize” the established cold laws and doctrines and infuse them with love and compassion and was criticized and put to death for it.

On another level this movie also presents a criticism on the fake, harmful and sex-obsessed modern world of advertising. This had its climax when the actor portraying Jesus in the staged play turned over the tables and destroyed all the cameras to protect his fellow actress / model from exposing herself to this greedy and inhuman jury of so-called critics during the audition. Of course, there is a deliberate parallel with Jesus attacking the money-lenders in church.

What impressed me most about the movie is that a young talented actor who is offered the role of Jesus would become so immersed in researching and “updating” the portrayal of his “character” that willy-nilly he gets dragged into the same fate. It is a kind of playing with fire and touching the higher powers and gradually being sucked into the same destiny. The most moving scene must be towards the end when he has sustained a hit on the head and is confused with reality and believes to be actually Jesus incarnate and warning bystanders of impending doom.

According to one of the actors, staging a tragedy is a sign of bad luck and, in fact, everything does result in disaster. The motions that had taken place with Jesus remain the same and lead to its own lethal demise. The resistance of the clergy is embodied in the priest and his supervisors who frown upon the new version of the play which inadvertently results in the principal actor’s death caused by an accidental fall of the cross!

The movie in my point of view shows how things have not really changed and if Jesus returned he would unfortunately have to encounter the same destiny as before. We would crucify him again because we have not really changed that much within and without. In addition, "Jesus of Montreal" also makes an interesting statement about following into the footsteps of Christ. This resounds with another controversial work, "The Last Temptation of Christ", where Jesus by being attributed more human characteristics becomes somewhat closer to us.

At least then, we can attempt to emulate him and strive towards a higher state of being instead of meekly and with heads turned to the ground be drilled the teachings and rules of Christ. In my view, Jesus would rather have us follow in his footsteps, like Buddha than someone who just outwardly and blindly sticks to the rules but inwardly is selfish like the Pharisee who observed the rules but was inferior to the modest tax collector in one of his parables.

Public Hygiene and the Removal and Confinement of Dangerous Individuals

The notion of a dangerous individual, someone being a danger to themselves and / or society was a notion that started with the invention of criminology in the nineteenth century. It is an interesting fact that after the concept of the dangerous individual, a person could be arrested “a priori” of the crime as a suspected “future” criminal. Before that, criminals were punished “after the fact” and rather for their “act” not just for dangerous features or characteristics.

Yet the idea of dangerous individuals has become a commonplace and a given in our modern society and justice system. It has perhaps even gotten a boost with recent threats of terrorism. People deemed terrorists, mostly fitting a particular profile or stereotype or background are often arrested before they are able to realize their plot as a way of ensuring public safety.

Another case for dangerous individuals is the occurrence of rampant shooting sprees which are often blamed on chemical imbalance in the brain. In fact, it has become the responsibility of psychiatry to spot those inherently dangerous individuals and to stop them before they actually commit the crime.(It reminds one of a precursor of Minority Report where the government would use psychic beings to predict crimes that were in the making and to arrest criminals in advance of their deed.)

This poses very interesting and complex dilemmas. First of all, as Foucault states, nowhere in the code of laws does it say that being dangerous is actually an offense or a crime. Secondly, this notion also has repercussions on responsibility, the question whether individuals have free will and are aware of the consequences of their acts or whether they are not responsible for their acts and follow simple neurological impulses without being conscious of the damages they are inflicting onto others, i.e. a momentary lapse of reason or a permanent state of insanity.

There are many arguments in support of such procedures since “reading” symptoms or traits of violence in advance and in time would help impede other mass shootings or killings of people from occurring. As such, it would avoid many unnecessary deaths and immeasurable grief among the public.These individuals in question are predisposed to commit violent acts and often it is shown through their comments, their attitudes and even certain actions, such as doodling violent sketches or uploading concrete threats on you tube.

My problem with this line of thinking is the dangers inherent in such propositions. One of them is simply “misreading” or misdiagnosis of the symptoms, for example the injustice of arresting an innocent person who simply suffers from violent tensions but is not capable of seriously harming people. For example, should we arrest Charlie Sheen (or Chris Brown for that matter) for violent spousal abuse? The arguments in those cases could go either way. I personally think if you beat women (even worse if it comes to children) there should be harsh and serious punishment.

Yet we should not underestimate the problem, subjectivity, or vagueness of such diagnosis. If we look back in history there has been a lot of misuse and misinterpretations, more often deliberate than not, when it comes to the dangerous individual. In fact, under the pretentious banner of “public hygiene”, many healthy people have been arrested or confined and “treated” in psychiatric facilities.

One of the most startling and appalling ones is the supposed moral decay and abnormal behavior of homosexuals. They have been arrested under the pretext of "being a danger" to society, simply because of their different sexual orientation. And it is not something of the past, even as recently as in the late fifties tuberculosis, cancer, alcoholism, prostitution, and homosexuality have been seen as threats to public hygiene in some Western societies!

Not to mention political arrests under the guise of protection of society; whether Fascists or Stalinists, each had their own politically motivated definitions of what constituted "danger" to society. Or even the initial, highly dubious claim of one of the fathers of criminology that one’s cheekbones or hairline could determine one’s prevalence towards criminal acts!

We may laugh at the latter statement but they did take it seriously back then. And who knows, years down the road people may laugh at our own science! There is still so much to be discovered in these areas. In sum, all of this should be taken with a grain of salt and one has to be clear on what one considers dangerous and what is simply “different” and not confuse the two.

The Romantic Spirit versus the Classical Modern Mind: Different Paradigms and Worldviews

During the period known as Romanticism, there was conscious rebellion against the previously established and prescribed order, namely Classicism. The Romantics had their own particular beliefs regarding religion, politics and the functions of art. They believed that humans had unlimited potential once given the opportunity to develop themselves and once they were able to discard all the negativity and constraints imposed upon them by a corrupt and malignant society.

They subscribed to the idea set forth by Rousseau that humans should be free regardless of their status in society, purposely including slaves, outcasts and pariahs in this category. Another point was that humans were inherently good and that it was only through contact and influence of society that they became evil and corrupted.

In addition, the Romantics believed that rational thought was enmeshed with the classical view and that it was rather imagination and feeling that would set humanity free. Their literary works reflected that philosophy. What mattered most was feeling in all its passionate forms.

Mysticism and the occult became trademarks of many Romantics as they looked beyond organized religion for the satisfaction of their existential cravings. Alchemy found many adherents; many were obsessed with finding the secret formula to turn lower metals into gold, and the quest for the philosopher’s stone or an elixir of life were other characteristics of the times.

However, it was Modernism that yearned for a return to classical standards. They disagreed with the Romantics and their revolution and thought that humans were limited in their potential. To them, it was absurd to think otherwise. They subscribed to a more deterministic view which should be reflected in art as well.

Order and careful planning brought out the best in humanity and was necessary for works of art. It was conscious work and elaboration and not just flights of imagination or intuition that defined the writer’s craft. The Romantics for them were grounded in no man’s land and needed a wake-up call to return to ordinary life which had its own beauty.

Accuracy and precise description and imagery were of great importance for this modern movement. It brought with it a more conscious interest with the form or structure of the work. It was a return to reason over emotion because the Modernists believed it was more reliable and more beneficial for humanity as well as art.

As we can see there is a clash of two different, almost opposite worldviews at work here. Nowadays we might side with the modernists although a postmodern movement is questioning that again. The writer’s craft for most of us is related with strong editing skills and an avoidance of (overly) sentimental styles. But deep inside the romantic quest is also part of our inheritance and I believe that in its controlled and somewhat subdued form it is equally important for life and art.

A Note of Thanks 2009: Personal Reflections of a Year Gone Past

Now that we are on the verge of yet another new year - and the start of another decade - I would like to look back to what this year has had to offer. Personally it was a very fulfilling year and one of dramatic change of life and circumstances.

I started the year with what I would like to call “fire in my belly”. I had felt dissatisfied with the status quo and wanted something “new” and “better” for my family. So we ended up selling everything we owned in Mexico and ventured into an unclear and undefined future.

My initial plan was to work in the Middle East, in particular, Saudi Arabia. Why? The idea was to set on an adventure, a completely new experience and, frankly, some money. But things as usual turn out different from what one has planned and we have ended up in Vancouver.

In Vancouver I have found a lot of support from many people, mainly friends and strangers. This post is especially dedicated to all those who have welcomed and have had unwavering faith in us. During this year I was fortunate to find various satisfying and fulfilling jobs with unbelievably great and wonderful supervisors. I couldn’t have wished for more! I want to thank them from the bottom of my heart on this space. Not to forget our great landlady who has also been very welcoming towards us. We appreciate all your help!

This year has also brought about an unusual experience for me, the making and premier of my first (and hopefully not last) short film with my friend and colleague Sylvain along with a wacky upbeat feature-length screenplay. The response to the short film has been very encouraging even if we did not get selected for film festivals. It was again the experience that counts and that sense of accomplishment and a certain satisfaction one feels despite the obvious limitations and shortcomings of a debut project.

Last, but absolutely not least, I want to thank all my cyber space friends and readers who have been interested in my articles! My blog is my pride and joy and despite an extremely busy, at times overwhelming schedule I have tried my best to keep posting new material. I wish you a happy New Year and lots of success in 2010 and hope to see you around!

Best wishes to everyone! And lots of love!

Blame it all on Pandora: Holding onto Hope in a World of Pain and Suffering

According to Greek mythology, the mighty Zeus was very angry (to use a euphemism for “pissed off”) that Prometheus had given humans the secret gift of sacred fire. So Zeus ordered Hephaestus to create a “beautiful evil” in flesh to tempt and lead astray mankind through her charms.

This beautiful woman was given to Epithemeus as a “gift”, incidentally the brother of Prometheus. Prometheus, speaking from experience, let his brother know that one should neither mess with the powerful Zeus nor accept any gifts from him. Nonetheless, Epithemeus disregarded all those warnings and accepted not only the beautiful wife but also a precious jar or box from Hermes, the messenger of Zeus.

The object itself did not pose any threat in itself, yet Pandora was told not to open it. She could look at it as much as she liked; as long as she managed to gain an upper hand on her curiosity, there would be no danger. So Pandora was amazed and kept staring at the precious gift, and gradually the inner voice of temptation would whisper in her ear. Over time, she did succumb to her curiosity, a trait once given to her by Hera, the wife of Zeus, and she actually opened the box.

What did she find inside? Evil spirits in various shapes and forms flew out and devastated the earth below. The place was filled with evil and mischievous laughter, and these spirits brought with them disease, decay, and death everywhere they went. Humans below were then punished since time immemorial with pain and suffering.

Pandora was devastated at the effects of her actions and began to lament her act of curiosity. However, she noticed a frail being that was crawled up in a corner of the box. It was a fairy with broken wings. She took it gently into her hands and kissed its wings. Slowly, this creature came to life and soon enough it was flying all around the place. And she gave this fairy the name of "Hope".

Our first immediate question might be: Was it really worth the endless suffering of billions of people for the satisfaction of a curious itch, Pandora? It would be so easy to blame her! All the suffering shall be her fault, the same way Cain was branded with the mark on his forehead for his evil ways. Similarly, we can blame Adam and Eve for trying of the forbidden fruit even though they were explicitly told not to! Was it worth to curse the human race for a momentous satisfaction of the craving for knowledge?

Or we can decide not to point fingers and accept the facts of (human) life. Suffering exists, yes, we are all bound to die and the countdown towards the inevitable starts with the piercing newborn's cry, yes, we are left in the dark and lack the reasons why and are left with puzzling attempts to answer those classic questions of the human condition.

Yet the message in Pandora's case does have an uplifting tone. We need to hold onto hope. Blindly and stubbornly, against all odds of logic. We need to believe, have faith and boldly take the step into the void, as Kierkegaard would urge us. We need to put it all on one card, as Pascal would like us know. And in the case of Eden, I think it is this kind of knowledge that the fruit wanted to erase from our minds, that yes, a benevolent creator, whatever his or her or its name or attributes, is watching us with loving and understanding eyes.